Sunday, July 11, 2004
Election 2004: Whistleblowers sue Deibold, could win millions
Heh. More power to them. Tell me it's not a great country!
Well. Surely Deibold's equipment is up to spec, and so this lawsuit should be easy to dismiss. Right?
Of course, all this assumes that we will, in fact, have an election...
Critics of electronic voting are suing Diebold Inc. under a whistleblower law, alleging that the company's shoddy balloting equipment exposed California elections to hackers and software bugs.
California's attorney general unsealed the lawsuit Friday. It was filed in November but sealed under a provision that keeps such actions secret until the government decides whether to join the plaintiffs.
Lawmakers from Maryland to California are expressing doubts about the integrity of paperless voting terminals made by several large manufacturers, which up to 50 million Americans will use in November.
The California lawsuit was filed in state court by computer programmer Jim March and activist Bev Harris, who are seeking full reimbursement for Diebold equipment purchased in California.
Issues cited by the case include Diebold's use of uncertified hardware and software, and modems that may have allowed election results to be published online before polls closed.
They are asking California to join the lawsuit against Diebold. The state has not yet made a decision.
State election officials have spent at least $8 million on paperless touchscreen machines. Alameda County, for one, has spent at least $11 million.
Under the whistleblower statute, March and Harris could collect up to 30 percent of any reimbursement.
"This is about money now - a case of the capitalist system at work," said March, of Sacramento. "The laws on voting products and processes are unfortunately unclear. But the law on defrauding the government is really, really clear. Going after the money trail is cleaner than going after proper procedures."
(via AP)
Well. Surely Deibold's equipment is up to spec, and so this lawsuit should be easy to dismiss. Right?
Of course, all this assumes that we will, in fact, have an election...